WorldNetDaily columnist Marisa Martin hides behind a pseudonym, and we would too if we wrote the kind of paranoiddrivel she cranksout.
In her July 6 WND column, "Martin" goes into full freak-out mode over over the Archie Comics storyline in which Archie dies taking a bullet for his gay best friend:
Archie Andrews was the love of my life at 12 – but I was forced to share him with sweet Betty and sultry Veronica, of course. How galling.
Faced with the usual dilemma of gracefully deposing a cartoon character who has “lived” ungodly long periods of time, Archie’s creators had him lay down his life for a friend. Isn’t that wonderful? Just as Jesus commended, but with so many variables … and the devil lies in the details, as they say.
One of these details is that by 2014 Archie’s taste in friends has greatly changed. Goofy Jughead was replaced by “best friend” Kevin Keller, an open homosexual. From the malt shop podium they could kick back and extol the virtues of the “gay” life, just like Plato and his disciples (although Plato later reversed this, describing the “crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature utterly unholy, odious to the gods and ugliest of ugly things”).
Moving back to Riverdale from Athens, Archie Comics gladly sacrifices their protagonist to homosexual “BFF” Kevin in his final chapter. Although this was issued last month, it’s part of a campaign to reshape comics as a tool of social reeducation. Progressive “Archie” publisher and co-CEO John Goldwater informed the AP of this himself: “We hope by showing how something so violent can happen to Archie, that we can – in some way – learn from him.”
It’s understandable that Archie’s publishers would want him bashed, because they obviously reached way beyond the public gullibility point. How many straight guys have a “gay” best friend, anyway? Perhaps an acquaintance or even a few friends, but Kevin and Archie discussing baseball and the comparative hotness of his babes?
Goldwater is a true believer, though. Aggressively pushing a type of “gay” hero worship, he claims to have accidentally stumbled across the story idea.
He eulogizes Archie’s murder in a paean of grandeur and praise for the noble sacrifice of life – but it’s obviously all about the homosexuality: “[Archie] dies selflessly in a manner that epitomizes not only the best of Riverdale, but the best in all of us.”
It’s clearly all about the sex, or an “openly gay” character wouldn’t be intrusively inserted into the storyline in Boy Scout country of Riverdale. Merits of homosexuality are never discussed in Goldwater’s interviews or the appropriateness of forcing it on children either. Why not have Archie die for Mother Teresa or a bus load of children? No political capital.
Martin continues her descent over the edge by correctly diagnosing her paranoia in the process yet reveling in it anyway:
I’ll probably be accused of being a conspiracy theorist for this, but the timing of these social campaigns is extraordinarily coincidental. Goldwater and his cronies launch his big change-the-kids campaign about 2008, the nascent Obama years. Talking points are identical: change, diversity, gun control and promotion of “gay” and alternative lifestyles, specifically in the military – oh, and zombie invasions.
I’m sure it’s a total coincidence, though, and Goldwater and his co-workers have never even heard of Obama or the Democratic national platform, nor are they useful lackeys in any way or have they been promised an ambassador’s position in Libya.
Goldwater proudly announces, “A new Riverdale is born!” with the death of traditional “Archie” and friends.
At its heels comes the news of their new series, “Escape from Riverdale.”
Perhaps some merciful writer/artist team will dream up “Escape from the Undead: Liberals Suck Riverdale Dry: Will Archie save the town in time?”
Like we said: If we wrote stuff like this, we'd hide behind a fake name too.
Mark Levin Effectively Calls Female Senator A Whore, MRC Stays Silent Topic: Media Research Center
It's been more than a week since right-wing radio host Mark Levin ranted at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for its endorsement of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu: "You lie down with whores like this and you become one." That means he was effectively calling Landrieu a whore as well.
You'd think that the Media Research Center, which has a business relationship with Levin, would say something. But it hasn't -- just like it didn't when Levin went on a bizarre rant against Jon Stewart, declaring that "I don't trust Jews who change their names."
Perhaps that business relationship has a clause in which the MRC is to ignore Levin's rants, no matter how offensive. After all, this is the same organziation that reacted to Rush Limbaugh's misogynistic tirade against Sandra Fluke by starting an "I Stand With Rush" fan page and calling Limbaugh's denigration of Fluke as a "slut" and "prostirtute" merely a "regrettable blunder."
Perhaps Brent Bozell and the crew really do believe Landrieu is a whore. After all, they had no problem believing Fluke was a slut.
WND's Barbara Simpson Ignores Facts To Rage At Immigrants Topic: WorldNetDaily
Barbara Simpson rants in her Aug. 3 WorldNetDaily column:
There’s only one way to describe my immediate reaction a couple of weeks ago when it was announced that the feds were going to use an upscale resort in Weslaco, Texas, to house illegal aliens.
The announcement came with pictures of the intended illegal domicile. It looked like something a travel agent would use to entice you to book a reservation.
I looked at those pictures and felt as though someone had plunged a knife in my gut. I had never felt that way before. It was depressing.
I looked at those pictures and realized with horror and dejection that my country was lost and that the likes of Barack Obama and his ilk were destroying our borders forever, and they would continue, virtually unimpeded, to destroy the greatest nation this planet has ever known.
The resort had all the amenities that only people with a substantial income could afford if they were in the market for a wonderful vacation – green lawns, lighted tennis courts, three pools, a Jacuzzi, an exercise room, suites, concierge service and all the amenities, plus retail and meeting space on seven acres.
For reasons not fully explained, the place was unoccupied and as far as the feds were concerned, it was ready and waiting for the occupants they were more than ready to provide.
It was just sitting there – waiting – for illegal aliens, people in this country illegally.
The intent was to have the illegals ensconced in luxury they could never have imagined, and it would all be free, along with meals, educational and recreational programs, case management, residential child care, as well as medical and mental health care – of course.
Simpson is so invested in her hatred of immigrants that she's ignoring facts about the proposed facility that debunk her rage.
"The feds" were not going to run this facility; a local group, Baptist Child and Family Services, were. And it would have been turned into a dormitory-type facility like others BCFS runs, not operated in a way to have "illegals ensconced in luxury."
Because of misinformation promulgated by conservatives like Simpson, BCFS has abandoned its plan for the facility.
But never mind the facts, Simpson still has rage to vent:
The common thread in all of this is that America taxpayers are paying for it and will be left with open borders and the influx of millions of uneducated, unskilled, non-English-speaking people who will fancy themselves American citizens.
What a farce.
Thanks, Barack, for killing my country, without firing a shot.
And thanks, Barbara Simpson, for demonstrating what an ideal WND columnist you are with your complete disregard for the facts.
CNS Still Pushing Birth Control 'Abortifacient' Myth Topic: CNSNews.com
Brittany Hughes writes in an Aug. 5 CNSNews.com article:
While advocates of religious freedom and the sanctity of life have hailed last month’s Hobby Lobby decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, the ruling did not liberate health insurance companies from being required to provide coverage for abortifacient drugs in their plans.
The Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, which is a Christian family-owned company, could not be required to provide cost-free coverage for two types of IUDs and two abortifacient drugs because the owners believed doing so violated their religious beliefs.
As CNS sofrequentlydoes, it's falsely portraying birth control as abortifacients. In fact, birth control methods that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg are, by medical definition, not abortifacients.
CNS management is aware of this medical fact. In a July 2 column CNS editor in chief Terry Jeffrey grumbled that the conservative Supreme Court justices who wrote the majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case pointed out the medical reality that such birth control methods are not abortifacients. He then tried to create his own reality by snarking: "OK, so do not call it an 'abortion.' Just call it a 'killing'."
So, it appears that CNS has chosen to deny reality because it conflicts with its political agenda. So much for journalism.
NEW ARTICLE -- Out There, Exhibit 60: Is Gina Loudon A Psychopath? Topic: WorldNetDaily
The WorldNetDaily columnist's eagerness to armchair-diagnose President Obama's purported mental illness makes one wonder about her own mental state. Read more >>
MRC Is Mad That People Wish Obama A Happy Birthday Topic: Media Research Center
Scott Whitlock really did devote an Aug. 4 Media Research Center item to this complaint:
From 2009 to 2014, every year of Barack Obama's presidency, the networks have observed his birthday, often wishing him a special day. A graphic for CBS This Morning on Monday touted, "Happy Birthday, Mr. President." Co-host Charlie Rose enthused, "President Obama is waking up a year older. The President turns 53 today, but his birthday weekend began Saturday." He reiterated, "Happy birthday, Mr. President."
Guest co-host Vinita Nair parroted, "Happy birthday." Over on NBC's Today, Savannah Guthrie reminded, "By the way, we should mention it's President Obama's 53rd birthday. So, happy birthday to him." Fill-in host Carson Daly offered, "Happy birthday." On America This Morning, the very early ABC show, co-host Devin Dwyer cheered, "Well, happy birthday wishes going out this morning to President Obama."
How hateful and partisan do you have to be to begrudge anyone wishing the president of the United States a happy birthday? Whitlock can't even be bothered to do any research on how "the networks" have acted in the past, only vaguely claiming that "George W. Bush's July 6 birthday only received sporadic note from the networks."
Yes, we know August is a slow month on the political calendar, but Whitlock has gone beyond "media criticism" and inadvertently exposed the MRC's partisan political agenda.
WND's AAPS-Linked Doctor Irresponsibly Fearmongers About Ebola Topic: WorldNetDaily
Fearmongering about filthy, disease-riddenimmigrants is what has endeared Elizabeth Lee Vliet to WorldNetDaily. And as befits a WND writer and someone affiliated with the ffar-right-ringe Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, facts just don't seem to matter to her.
In her Aug. 3 WND column, Vliet latches on to the Ebola scare:
Deadly Ebola hemorrhagic fever is raging out of control in multiple countries in West Africa. Border Patrol agents confirmed that West Africans have been apprehended coming via Mexico into the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, with a number of seriously ill individuals whisked away to undisclosed locations for treatment of undisclosed illnesses. ABC News reported in mid-July that seriously ill illegals were flown from Texas to Ventura Naval base recently with high fever, respiratory difficulties, and coughing blood. At least three required ICU admission. No information was released on what illness was diagnosed, but the time course, severity of symptoms, and need for immediate ICU treatment is not typical for tuberculosis and more consistent with Ebola or hemorrhagic forms of dengue fever.
But the WND article to which Vliet links as evidence says nothing about seriously ill West Africans crossing the southern border and being "whisked away to undisclosed locations for treatment of undisclosed illnesses."
Vliet gets more unhinged and conspiratorial as her column goes on:
Ebola’s use as a weapon of terror and mass destruction has been documented by GlobalSecurity.org, which reports that the former Soviet Union biological weapons program had weaponized the Ebola virus, and that Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese terror group, recently sent members to Africa to harvest the virus during an outbreak.
After long neglecting the contagious disease issues that arose in early June, on July 31, ABC, NBC, CBS and other news outlets simultaneously reported the arrival of two Ebola patients from Africa. Does this give “plausible deniability” to the possible role of illegal border-crossers in bringing Ebola to the U.S.?
In fact, the GlobalSecurity.org article she cites are only speculation and unverified reports (emphasis added):
Reports suggested that the Ebola virus was researched and weaponized by the former Soviet Union's biological weapons program Biopreparat. Dr. Ken Alibek, former the First Deputy Director of Biopreparat, speculated that the Russians had aerosolized the Ebola virus for dissemination as a biological weapon. The Japanese terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo reportedly sent members to Zaire during an outbreak to harvest the virus.
Given that this article is undated, Vliet has no basis to claim any of these purported incidents happened "recently."
Meanwhile, PolitiFact points out just how remote the possibility of Ebola-infected immigrants from West Africa being smuggled across the southern border is, citing actual experts in doing so:
"The incubation period is two to 21 days, so theoretically, an African could fly from an infected area, land in a Mexican airport, take a bus toward the border, hire a coyote to take him across and then ‘present’ with Ebola," said Thomas Fekete, section chief for infectious diseases at the Temple University School of Medicine. "But this presupposes a suicidal person who also has the resources for this kind of travel."
Indeed, the prior, scattered examples of exotic and deadly diseases reaching the United States suggest that "the likelihood of an illegal migrant getting infected and introducing the disease to the U.S. is probably less than that of a ‘legal’ traveler," said Daniel G. Bausch, head of the virology and emerging infections department at the U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit No.6 in Lima, Peru.
Another problem: If you had such an infection, the chances are good that you would die on the journey to the United States, said Arthur Caplan, director of the division of medical ethics at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. "You would be too sick to make it to the border by foot," he said.
But Vliet isn't done:
Not very contagious? Really? Then why do World Health Organization officials say the “worst on record” Ebola outbreak in three countries in West Africa is spreading out of control? Why all the special hazmat suits for doctors and nurses? Why did two doctors die treating Ebola patients? Why all the special and expensive isolation units for Ebola patients? In sharp contrast to WHO, U.S. Centers for Disease Control, or CDC, and government spokespersons seem to be going out of their way to downplay risks to Americans.
That's because the risks are, in fact, miniscule. Numerousexpertsagree that there is little threat of an Ebola outbreak in the U.S. because the U.S. health infrastructure is much more robust than it is in West Africa. And since Ebola is not transmitted through the air but, rather, by direct contact with the bodily fluids of an infected person, it is indeed "not very contagious."
By spreading lies and conspiracy theories, Vliet is acting in an irresponsible manner with her Ebola fearmongering.
Newsmax Whitewashes Kansas Economy To Save Brownback Topic: Newsmax
John Gizzi devotes his Aug. 1 Newsmax column to putting the best face he can on the economy in Kansas in order to boost Republican Gov. Sam Brownback's flagging re-election prospects:
In one of the most improbable poll results to emerge from any state this year, a SurveyUSA poll two weeks ago showed Kansas Republican Gov. Sam Brownback trailing Democratic opponent Paul Davis by a margin of 48 percent to 40 percent among likely voters statewide.
"Improbable" is the adjective most frequently used to characterize these results because it accurately reflects the idea that any Republican governor, especially a national conservative hero for his no-tax, small government agenda, could be trailing a Democrat in Kansas. In the last 76 years, the Sunflower State has elected only five Democratic governors.
So why is Brownback, a former two-term U.S. senator who captured the governorship in 2010 with 63 percent of the vote, in political hot water this year?
To pundits, Brownback is the underdog against state House Minority Leader Davis because the governor has pursued a decidedly conservative agenda. With Brownback in charge as the state faces a $300 million revenue shortfall, The Washington Post concluded "he may be paying a political price."
Brownback supporters say his agenda is working, but like the tax and spending cuts Ronald Reagan helped put into law in 1981, its positive results may not occur immediately.
With Republicans in firm control of both houses of the legislature, Brownback successfully guided to law major cuts in the state income tax rate (from 6.4 percent to 4.8 percent) with the eventual goal of abolishing the state income tax. While it is true that Kansas faces a major shortfall, it also has unemployment of only 4.9 percent — "the tenth lowest in the nation," Brownback proudly says — and has witnessed a growth in technical education.
Actually, the economy in Kansas under Brownback is in much worse shape that Gizzi will admit.
The Kansas City Star points out that the job growth rate in Kansas has been anemic, and that in fact the state has recently lost jobs, led by thousands of local and state government jobs that were cut:
Kansas has had one of the nation’s poorest rates of employment growth during Brownback’s time in office, including since the first tax cuts took effect in 2013.
The new Bureau of Labor Statistics report also reveals that Kansas — like eight other states — had fewer jobs at the end of June than it did seven months ago. This fact undermines the Brownback mantra that the state’s economy is gaining steam in 2014.
By the way, several other states also have trimmed local and state government employment, yet still surged ahead of Kansas in private sector jobs. For good measure, the number of government and private sector jobs have grown in states like Colorado, Oklahoma and Iowa.
Meanwhile, Forbes describes how Brownback bought into right-wing ideology that tax cuts pay for themselves, the folly of which is demonstrated by the state's current revenue shortfall:
The business boom predicted by tax cut advocates has not happened, and it certainly has not come remotely close to offsetting the static revenue loss from the legislated tax cuts.
One can argue whether cutting taxes is a good thing. One can argue about whether government is too big. One can even argue about whether low taxes increase business activity. But one cannot credibly argue that tax cuts increase revenue or even pay for themselves. They didn’t for Ronald Reagan. They don’t for Sam Brownback. They won’t for the next politician who tries—whether he (or she) is in Washington, D.C. or in some state capital.
Nevertheless, Gizzi concludes his column in full Brownback rah-rah mode: "If Sam Brownback, who has already made history of sorts with a bold and controversial agenda, next makes history by winning re-election, it will be one of the defining political moments of 2014."
A team of attorneys is jumping to the defense of a scientist who was fired after making the stunning discovery of soft tissue attached to a triceratops skeleton, undermining the belief that dinosaurs roamed earth no less than 60 million years ago.
The Pacific Justice Institute said its case on behalf of Mark Armitage alleges a university official where Mark Armitage worked shouted at him, “We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!”
The suit against California State University Northridge, filed recently in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the board of trustees, alleges discrimination.
“Terminating an employee because of their religious views is completely inappropriate and illegal,” said Brad Dacus, PJI president.
Unruh is so invested in advocating for PJI that not only can't he be bothered to obtain any response to the lawsuit from the university, the headline of Unruh's article is surprisingly close to the headline on PJI's press release on the lawsuit.
Unruh also obscures facts to make PJI and its client look good. He suggests that Armitage's dinosaur research was done under the auspices of the university that employed him; in fact, Armitage was doing his dinosaur research outside of the school with other creationists, and he was employed by the university only as a part-time microscope technician.
Unruh also suggests that Armitage's publication of his "stunning discovery of soft tissue attached to a triceratops skeleton" was directly linked to his alleged firing. But as the blog io9 points out, Armitage apparently went beyond his job description by discussing his young-earth creationism with students:
This description of events sounds like Mr. Armitage informed some students of his young-earth creationist beliefs, and this might be where Dr. Kwok, his new supervisor, found out about them as well. Unmentioned by the lawsuit, students (undergrad? grad?) in biology departments are not big fans of hearing about young-earth creationism, so at least one of these students might have thought Mr. Armitage was proselytizing to them, even if he didn't intend to.
It sounds like Mr. Armitage said something not-very-scientific towards students and may or may not have told them that dinosaur fossils are thousands of years old. Maybe Mr. Armitage shouldn't have done that.
Further, as io9 commenters went on to note, Armitage's paper on his dinosaur research is suspect because it lacks information about where his research was conducted or any acknowledgments for research assistance. This raises the possibility that Armitage may have been using the microscope lab he worked at to conduct his research, perhaps without permission.
It seems there's much more to this story than Unruh would have you think. Too bad Unruh is completely uninterested in reporting it.
WND's Zahn Tries To Impose Christianity On Pre-Christian 'Hercules' Topic: WorldNetDaily
See if you can follow this chain of thought from Drew Zahn's WorldNetDaily review of the new "Hercules" film:
The film follows the adventures of the ancient Greek hero Hercules after he’s completed his legendary 12 labors, with the clever twist that he’s not really the son of Zeus, as Greek mythology would teach, but only a hardened warrior who has gotten by with the help of his friends. The stories of his conquests, however, grew to mythical proportions (with a bit of help), until people believed him the “son of a god.”
Each “magical” event and “monster” in his life is revealed by the film to be a perfectly natural occurrence only inflated to its supernatural reputation by a bit of trickery and the help of the grapevine.
And so long as we’re talking only about the mythical Hercules, this naturalist explanation for an ancient, supernatural hero is not a problem. Discerning audiences could enjoy the action and imagery and celebrate the movie’s messages about heroism, integrity and the measure of a man.
But if, by chance, this thread theme of the movie – that ancient heroes were not really supernatural, but at best overblown legends and, at worst, frauds – were to apply to Jesus Christ … why, then we’d have a different message to the movie after all.
And that’s where I found the half of a worm.
No, Jesus is never mentioned by name in the movie, nor are any direct parallels made. There’s a companion who betrays Hercules, the son of a god father and human mother, for money – but it’s still clear we’re talking about Hercules, not Jesus and his betrayer, Judas.
Yet the final line of the film feels way too much like finding the head of the thread was a snake all along.
“The world needs a hero they can believe in,” explains Hercules’ companion Amphiaraus. “Is he actually the son of Zeus? It doesn’t really matter.”
Then the final credits roll, with the song singing, “Ain’t no God on these streets, in the heart of the jungle. Won’t you follow me into the jungle?”
For me, the moment just felt a step too far.
I can’t say the filmmakers meant the movie in any way as a reference to Christ – “Hercules” does nothing to really justify that conclusion. But I do think audiences, especially undiscerning audiences culture-wide, will all too easily find their minds greased to swallow the humanistic idea that Jesus was a heroic figure, a good teacher, even if he wasn’t really divine. They just watched, after all, how all magic and monsters and miracles aren’t really real, but legends that grew into supernatural malarkey over the passage of time. If it was true of Hercules …
“The world needs a hero they can believe in. Is he actually the son of [God]? It doesn’t really matter.”
Doesn’t matter? Doesn’t matter! It’s all that matters!
As we read it, Zahn is concerned that a Greek myth might be extrapolated to apply to Christianity, despite the fact that there is no mention of Christianity in the film.Which makes sense, since the time of Greek mythology predates Christianity.
Indeed, Zahn writes later: "The movie is set in a time of superstition, and there’s stories told of the Greek gods, but no actual gods appear, nor is religion prominently displayed. In fact, the point of the movie is that the superstition is all false anyway."
But doesn't the arrival of Christianity implicitly hold that the Greek mythology it superceded was all superstition and, thus, false?
It seems that Zahn is trying to impose his version of Christianity on a pre-Christian narrative. But imposing his own agenda instead of reviewing movies for what they are is what Zahn is all about.
Tim Graham's Imaginary J-School Topic: Media Research Center
Tim Graham is the director of media analysis at the Media Research Center. Here's some of that "media analysis," as described in a July 28 Newsmax article:
Journalists are trained to distrust the United States, and that distrust has trickled down to Israel, says Tim Graham, executive editor of NewsBusters and director of media analysis at the Media Research Center.
"They feel that in most foreign conflicts, they are trained as journalists to always suspect that the United States is doing something immoral,'' Graham said Monday on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"In this conflict, Israel is seen as the United States, so Israel must be doing something wrong, especially when the prime minister's not shaking hands with whoever the Palestinian leader of the moment is.
"In this particular case, Israel is the stand-in for the United States. Therefore, Israel is the aggressor and somehow the Palestinians are the victims.''
Seriously? Journalists are trained to distrust the United States? What planet is Graham from?
Graham claims to have had some journalism training in college (well, a mass communications minor), and we're pretty sure that nobody at Bemidji State University ever attempted to train him to "distrust the United States." Meanwhile, I have both bachelor's and master's degrees in journalism, and say unequivocally that learning to distrust the United States was not part of my training.
It seems that Graham's "media analysis" has nothing to do with how journalists actually work and everything to do with perpetuating a right-wing caricature of it. It may be divorced from reality, but hey, it apparently keeps the donations rolling in to the MRC.
WND Columnist Botches Facts On U.S. Humanitarian Aid To Gaza Topic: WorldNetDaily
Ben Kinchlow gets a couple things wrong about the U.S. role in the Israel-Hamas conflict in his July 28 WorldNetDaily column. First, he writes: "Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall Secretary of State John Kerry flying in to meet with the Palestinian leadership to stop their firing rockets into Israeli towns and villages."
But "the Palestinian leadership" is not firing rockets into Israel; Hamas is. Because Hamas is considered a terrorist organization, the U.S. does not negotiate directly with them.
Keep in mind, Israel and America are allies, yet the Obama administration announced a week ago that it is sending $47 million in humanitarian aid to the Palestinian government.
“Humanitarian aid” to a government that calls on its own citizens to refuse to leave buildings Israel has warned will be targeted? If these government officials are willing to have their people killed by pre-announced Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages, how much humanitarian concern does it have?
First, Kinchlow is again falsely conflating Hamas with all Palestinians. Second, that aid is not being given to the Palestinian government -- it's going to USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
Still, Kinchlow clings to his misinformation:
I have a question for the current administration. You just approved an additional $47 million in humanitarian aid to a government that openly calls for the destruction of its neighbor, continually allows rockets to be fired at civilians and promotes the death of its own citizens as martyrs and human shields.
“What up wid dat, Homies?”
The better question is what up wid a columnist who fails to get his facts straight before he opines.
I was astonished and angered to read last week that the American Civil Liberties Union gathered “a coalition of 45 civil rights, human rights, privacy rights and faith-based organizations (and) sent a letter to President Obama asking for ‘a full public accounting of … practices’” related to the NSA’s spying on five leading American Muslims.
Sure, it’s a legitimate complaint, so why am I angry? Because instead of requesting this “full public accounting,” the ACLU should be organizing with other presumed guardians of our individual constitutional liberties to demand that impeachment proceedings begin against Obama, the most flagrant presidential violator of the Constitution in our history.
This is for the sake of our very identity as Americans.
So, what are the real sympathies of the Obama administration and Democratic power players toward their beleaguered black urban constituents? I would imagine it is something in the area of utter contempt. Think about it: Progressive-socialist Democratic politicians have been exploiting blacks for decades; certainly, having managed to bring them from a place of cultural viability to abject thralldom – with their willing participation, I might add – can’t have improved these elites’ opinions of blacks at large. As far as Obama and his cabal are concerned, well, blacks are just useful idiots in the true Leninist sense.
My question is what these suffering inner-city blacks across America would think – and do – if they knew that their suffering was by design. I suppose that ultimately using blacks’ outrage to foment violent urban uprisings may indeed be part of the plan, but this remains to be seen.
It wasn’t that long ago that a prospective Supreme Court justice was blackballed because he had occasionally smoked marijuana while in college. Although it seems as if it happened a hundred years ago, it wasn’t that long until we elected Bill Clinton, who admitted he had smoked pot, but lied about never having inhaled. That’s like saying you ate a T-bone steak, but didn’t swallow.
We then elected Barack Obama who not only smoked weed on a regular basis, but bragged about it in his autobiography. All along, I had thought that all of his obvious problems were the result of his having been abandoned as a child by his mother, father and stepfather, and left to be raised by communist grandparents and a sexual pervert, Frank Marshall Davis, who served as a mentor to young Barack.
However, now that medical research has linked marijuana not only to a diminished mental capacity, but to schizophrenia, I have had to revise my diagnosis. It’s just possible that marijuana played an equally large role in the stoner’s turning out to be such a lousy excuse for a president.
You have to be extraordinarily ignorant or gullible to believe that the chaos on the southwest border is an accident of history or the unexpected byproduct of a well-meaning act of Congress back in 2008. Just the opposite is true.
The current “surge” in border crossings by families and unaccompanied children is about as unexpected and unplanned as the expansion of Medicaid enrollments under Obamacare. Both are the logical and predictable results of Obama policies.
The question has been asked many times over the last five years: What is Barack Obama doing?
Why is he inviting massive numbers of illegal aliens, including children, to risk their lives to swarm our southern border?
Why has he created a national health-care system that is unsustainable economically in the long term and is creating crisis in the short term?
Why is he turning down the opportunity to buy oil from our neighbor to the north and forcing Canada to sell it to China instead?
In short, why is he doing so much of what he is doing that seems not to make a lot of sense to the American people?
The shocking answer is that they do make sense in a perverted, un-American paradigm – one I have tried to bring to the attention of the American people for many years. The purpose is to increase misery and manufacture crises.
Had Obama not sought election to the presidency, his ideas could rightly be characterized as un-American. In fact, they were by many opponents in 2008 and 2012.
There were many presidents in American history who exceeded their constitutional authority.
There were many presidents in American history who hurt the country through their actions.
There were many presidents in American history who caused pain and sorrow for their constituents.
But has there ever before been an American president who intentionally took office to subvert and undermine the Constitution for the express purpose of imposing his own will on the people without a thought or care to constitutional limits?
President Barack Hussein Obama is literally destroying the world. If you thought that Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were bad, there is no comparison to this socialist/communist, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white commander in chief whom I frequently refer to sarcastically, but realistically, as the “Mullah in Chief.”
Remember, Obama is not a leader in the traditional sense. He’s not a president in any sense – at least as we have known that office in the past. He’s a community organizer who counts on demonizing his opponents, playing the victim, blaming, as he did last week, “the unjust status quo,” as if he is an outside in Washington rather than the occupant of the White House for the last five and a half years.
I’ve never thought Obama’s decisions were haphazard, unplanned, unscripted and without purpose – just irresponsible, reckless, un-American, extra-constitutional and evil.
And that’s why I raise the question.
More and more critical observers are suggesting Obama wants Republicans to move toward impeachment. It is as if he is daring them to do so. Maybe he recognizes the party’s timid national leadership is reticent to take him on in any meaningful way. Maybe he hopes the midterm election damage will be less severe if the Republican base throws up its hands in frustration over having no meaningful alternative. Maybe he just wants to introduce more confusion and chaos into American politics. Maybe the border crisis is yet another attempt to play the race card that has been his trump card since he ran for president.
Whatever it is, America is paying a big price right now for electing and re-electing this fraud, this impostor, this demagogue.
Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy Watch Topic: Media Research Center
You'd think that after 25 years of attacking the media, the Media Research Center would have developed a clue about how news works. Apparently not.
A July 30 MRC item by Kyle Drennen carries the headline "NBC Touts Palestinian Teen Praising 'Justified' Hamas Terror Attacks on Israe." Drennen complains that NBC "highlighted a Palestinian teenager celebrating the terror group's attacks: 'In Gaza, many see these attacks as justified. 16-year-old Farah Bakkar has developed a following online after live tweeting as [Israeli] bombs fell....Farah never supported Hamas before, but does now.' A sound bite ran of Bakkar proclaiming: 'When I see the [Hamas] rockets getting to Israel, I start loving them more and more and I pray for them.'" Drennen presents this as NBC endorsing the teen's remarks.
This is the Depiction-Equals-Approval Fallacy run amok. It's simply absurd to claim, as Drennen is trying to do, that the inclusion of a point of view in a news report means the news outlet agrees with that viewpoint.
After all these years, this is what passes for "media research" at the MRC.